The Rebuttal

If you live in a world of “just the FACTS”, the uncomfortable fact about the Rebuttal of my 2013 Annual Appraisal is that it shows there was no substance to the Annual Appraisal.

Oh dear. If there was no substance to the Annual Appraisal, that could prove that the PIP was unwarranted (as I had repeatedly said since the day I was given it) and if the PIP was unwarranted, that would suggest that the attempt to impose it was, in fact, 1) harassment and 2) an abuse of authority….. and if so, that would raise various questions of the WTF variety with regard to Dudley’s role in trying to impose the damn thing in the first place and Lapointe’s role in endorsing it. It would open the door to the question of whether or not the UN’s understanding of the word “investigation” was recognised by anyone else on the surface of the planet…. which is not the sort of question anyone wants to have to answer.

It follows, therefore, that if anyone actually bothered to read the Rebuttal, far less actually make a decision on the strength of it, that could be a bit of an embarrassment.

This was a problem because ST/AI/2010/5 provides for a Panel to actually consider Rebuttals, so one would expect that such a Panel would actually have to read it.